Paper detail

Cataclysmic Variables below the Period Gap: Mass Determinations of 14 Eclipsing Systems

We present high-speed, three-colour photometry of the eclipsing cataclysmic variables CTCV 1300, CTCV 2354 and SDSS 1152. All three systems are below the observed "period gap" for cataclysmic variables. For each system we determine the system parameters by fitting a parameterised model to the observed eclipse light curve by chi-squared minimisation. We also present an updated analysis of all other eclipsing systems previously analysed by our group. New donor masses are generally between 1 and 2 sigma of those originally published, with the exception of SDSS 1502 and DV UMa. We note that the donor mass of SDSS 1501 has been revised upwards by 0.024Msun. This system was previously identified as having evolved passed the minimum orbital period for cataclysmic variables, but the new mass determination suggests otherwise. Our new analysis confirms that SDSS 1035 and SDSS 1433 have evolved past the period minimum for cataclysmic variables, corroborating our earlier studies. We find that the radii of donor stars are oversized when compared to theoretical models, by approximately 10 percent. We show that this can be explained by invoking either enhanced angular momentum loss, or by taking into account the effects of star spots. We are unable to favour one cause over the other, as we lack enough precise mass determinations for systems with orbital periods between 100 and 130 minutes, where evolutionary tracks begin to diverge significantly. We also find a strong tendency towards high white dwarf masses within our sample, and no evidence for any He-core white dwarfs. The dominance of high mass white dwarfs implies that erosion of the white dwarf during the nova outburst must be negligible, or that not all of the mass accreted is ejected during nova cycles, resulting in the white dwarf growing in mass. (Abridged)

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.